To someone from 2000 years ago, or a 1000 years ago, or even a century ago, today's society would probably look inhumanly benevolent. I guess I too am an optimist. I think we sometimes take for granted how good we have it today and how much progress we've made over time.

To someone from 2000 years ago, or a 1000 years ago, or even a century ago, today's society would probably look inhumanly benevolent. I guess I too am an optimist. I think we sometimes take for granted how good we have it today and how much progress we've made over time.

Btw, back to the thread topic, here is an example of what I was trying to say. In USA, at least, there are many campaigns against drunk driving, they usually boil down to, "Drive Drunk, Go To Jail". They don't say, "drive drunk and if you're caught you will be subject to trial and possible imprisonment if convicted guilty" but those things must happen to actually go to jail. Yes, you can be put in holding before arraignment and have to pay bail, but you are not necessarily in jail as that usually refers to an actual sentence. So my interpretation of Fox threatening Scotty is I can have you put in jail, by bringing charges that you disobeyed a direct order and after a courtmartial you can be sent a penal colony. He is by bringing charges, sending him to a penal colony, but not without due process. But when you're threatening someone, you don't mention how they might get out of it in the same breath. Therefore, no mention of a trial.

In Washington State, if you're caught driving "impaired" you go to jail prior to any trial.

However, it does take a trial to send someone subsequently into the penal system. Fox's statement does (at least the way he phrased it) imply that he possessed the personal authority to sent Scott to a penal colony, solely on his say so.